Reminder that Marx's criticism is not actually "immanent", that's just garbage pushed by philosophy nerds. You don't need all that immanence crap to make a point. It's just pretentious ideology made to sound profound, projected onto Marx by critical theory clowns trying to impose a purely epistemological framework onto the object of study.
It is entirely possible to analyze a system objectively and recognize how it operates according to the interests of the system. Concepts like "dialectical thinking" are pleonasm. If you're thinking correctly, you're already thinking dialectically by default to explain, not to mystify; to clarify relations, not to invent essences; to use logic, not to absolutize it.
i'm not gonna bother going through the sources exactly but, in materialism and empiriocriticism, lenin shows that matter without motion and motion without matter cannot exist. "matter = motion" with justified abuse of notation. matter is constantly changing, that's also one point of dialectics A=A but also A!=A because A is always changing.
so say you're a dialectician, suppose you're also a materialist, so, the subject of your research is matter and motion itself, matter in motion and motion in matter. you're studying the laws of motion of matter, laws of matter in motion, the general laws of motion. that's 'dialectical materialism'. i don't know if marx ever explictly wrote it down like this, but this is i think the gist of diamat
>>2395308"Existing" implies an act. You can easily imagine "still matter" that is inert to all interactions, but if you follow through that thought experiment you have some funny results if you are tied to sense-experience to describe the world. That's the sleight-of-hand trick. Mechanics requires "still matter" to make meaningful predictions, which it certainly can do. Otherwise you are left with a morass of forces that seem to go nowhere. You don't ask what moves the force arrow; you just accept that such a thing exists, at least temporarily, to study the world.
It would not be possible without a thorough metaphysics to answer the question of what it means to "move", and nothing about metaphysics is written in nature or "encoded". That's kind of the argument being made against the metaphysicists. But if your argument is that you cannot imagine stillness or inert matter, that is trivially disproven. We could construct an entire world-system out of "still" matter, and evoke a force called "time" that can be quantized to grant to this still matter the property of "motion". Such system leads to severe problems when predicting anything in the universe, but any time you are conjuring a force, you are supposing exactly that, whether it is in physics or in an abstract understanding.
The whole foulness of "diamat" is difficult to explain unless you're victimized by its ideologues, or you see the poor souls trapped in that form of insanity. It is a malicious insanity that starts from the necessary starting point of science—doubt—and inverts it so that endless insinuation is possible and no findings can be made. In this way, science and knowledge can be made wholly proprietary.
>>2395198>Your own image is refuting what you're whining about. illiterate retard
>I HATE DA INTELLECTUALZlolk
< The biggest obstacles are the small peasants and the importunate super-clever intellectuals who always think they know everything so much the better, the less they understand it. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_03_25-abs.htm >>2395338i think you're overcomplicating things. all matter is motion, period. motionless matter means matter which doesn't dissapitate heat in any way which means it is at absolute zero. this is a mathematical limit. it doesn't exist in actuality. matter and motion are the same thing, you cannot imagine 'still matter' and you are misunderstading what physical formulas are actually describing.
>>2395338>We could construct an entire world-system out of "still" matter, and evoke a force called "time" that can be quantized to grant to this still matter the property of "motion". you could but it wouldn't mean anything because a) there's no still matter and on a deeper, philosophical level, b) you cannot take one kilo of axioms and get two kilos of consequence. my position works by assuming matter and motion exist (both observable) generalizing to the fact that matter is motion. you start with still matter (doesn't exist) evoke time (introduce an axiom) claim you can quantify it and derive from it motion (derive a consequence). etc etc.
>>2395338I'm a certified physics-let but to me it seems like you mish mash classical Newtonian mechanics and quantum physics.
There are plenty objects on my desk right now which are not in motion and yet, the matter these objects are made of is in motion.
>>2395692so you have no source for your quotes?
curious
>>2395700that took quite a while, didnt? anyway, you dont recall when the older marx rebuked his younger self by deciding to become a student of hegel in preparation for the writing of capital?
>The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of Das Kapital, it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Ἐπίγονοι [Epigones — Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm >>2395702>I will have a look at it, but I must say that if "little Moritz" is right when he quotes Barth as stating that the sole example of the dependence of philosophy, etc., on the material conditions of existence which he can find in all Marx's works is that Descartes declares animals to the machines, then I am sorry for the man who can write such a thing. And if this man has not yet discovered that while the material mode of existence is the primum agens [primary agent, prime cause] this does not preclude the ideological spheres from reacting upon it in their turn, though with a secondary effect, he cannot possibly have understood the subject he is writing about. However, as I said, all this is secondhand and little Moritz is a dangerous friend. The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late [18]70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist." brvtal
>>2396121Immanent means inherent (in it of itself).
Immanent critique is a critique from within the subject that exposes its contradictions.
>>2395198>Your own image is refuting what you're whining about. yeah
>The people bastardizing dialectics are Stalinoids who follow his and Mao's bastardizationsnah. bet u cant name even one of these supposed bastadizations
>>2396778>ermmmm this is analytical marxism!!! (its not)lol
>you cannot be a marxist if you reject Hegelian dialecticsLMAO
way to prove op right
>>2424895>quotemining>quote proves you wrongilliterate fucking retard hanging on to choice words and ignoring the context of even the same paragraph lmfao
couldnt be arsed to read such a short thread btw
>>2395685 >>2425005have you actually read marxist theory
>marxist praxis?
>>2425010theres no "marxist practice" because marxism is just critique
>Is it really that difficult to use a dictionary?pseud here being sassy when they havent read the shit they talk so confidently about rofl
>>2425010also,
>how do you explain Marxist theory without dialectics?another one who has no idea what scientific socialism even entails
dialectics is presentation, not method. pretty sure you can explain science without philosophy :)
>>2425245That is only true in light of Dialectical and Historical Materialism
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htmHere is a short introduction to the topic – written for an audience of newly literate workers and peasants, so if you can't understand it, the point is to look up the words you don't understand with a dictionary, encyclopaedia and even a web search or asking a chat bot now; in short if it doesn't make sense this is a you problem that you can easily fix yourself – enjoy the read
三Q😊
>>2424998>philosophy is at odds with sciencenope
>>2425237>"marxism" is not a science and never was onewrong
ONLY GOD CAN UNDERSTAND DIALECTICS: WHY HEGELIAN MARXISTS ARE PSEUDS
TLDR: dialectics aren’t real and even if they were humans would be incapable of understanding them
PEOPLE TOTALLY MISUNDERSTAND ANTI HEGELIANISM. The whole reason to be anti hegel is that a human mind is equivalent to a universal turing machine (if not actually much WEAKER since a TM has unlimited memory and a human brain doesn’t). None of his critiques of Hegel's logic make sense without this basic understanding.
All of theoretical CS is based on the classical categories of computability theory (degrees of unsolvability, computability over functions, real numbers and ordinals). There is even a book, less known here, "Computation and its limits" which goes into detail debunking "hypercomputationalists" i.e. people who reject the academic CS consensus and argue that the human brain can go beyond a turing machine. This isn't just a limited claim about building software, its a universal claim on the actual mathematical limits of logic and even physics.
>Here we have the same sort of presentation process that occurs in the Logic, with its deduction of being from nothingness, and becoming from the contradiction between the two. At the beginning in Hegel this has a certain plausibility but as the argument proceeds, as he gets to the derivation of “ought.” I for one felt, reading Hegel as an undergraduate, that this was all a conjuring trick. He was sneaking already formed presuppositions and concepts into the argument rather than deriving them. This essentially is what Althusser says of Marx’s form of presentation. It only works to the extent that he brings in real historical forms which have their own material history, their own information content, into the argument. Althusser contrasts this form of presentation at the start with the chapters on the working day and primitive accumulation which present the real histories of the forms being discussed.
>If we look at the history of mathematics, and if any domain would seem suited to the logical self development of ideas it is maths, we can see how a method analogous to that of Hegel came to grief. The formalist project of Russell and Hilbert came to grief first in set theory and then in Turing’s (1937) paper on the decision problem. The project had aimed to found mathematics on logic and Hilbert had asked for a mechanical procedure by which the truth or falsity of a mathematical theorem could be determined. If a theorem could be proven true, then you demonstrate that it can be derived from axioms using valid rules of inference. So if you could discover such a mechanical method for checking arbitrary theorems, you would have demonstrated that all of maths could be logically deduced from a collection of founding axioms. Turing showed that no such proof decision process can exist. He did it by taking the term “mechanical procedure” and designing a general purpose “universal” computer that could perform any calculation that a human mathematician could do. He then demonstrated that the assumption that such a mechanical proof procedure could exist would lead to a contradiction analogous to Russell’s paradox. It thus follows that even in mathematics, the project of a complete and logical development of the system falls down. The basic reason is that you cannot get more out of an axiomatic system than you put in: Chaitin’s aphorism: “You cannot get two kilos of results from one kilo of axioms.” Advocates of “dialectical logic” may say that this is just a restriction of formal logic, dialectical logic does allow you to derive more than you start out with. Well the reason why formal logic is different is that it is specified precisely enough to allow machine checking. A human dialectician is free to engage in all sorts of rhetorical sleights of hand, importing hidden assumptions without needing to give any justification for them. The great advantage of a mechanizable formalism is that it excludes such verbal conjuring tricks.
That's the reason we should reject Hegelian logic and especially applied to political economy, because it would have to violate Chaitin's incompleteness theorem to be true. Marx is in tension because he's a half Hegelian - he tries to start off the exposition of capital in a Hegelian manner but is required to smuggle in actual historical empirical data about the development of capitalism (ex: primitive accumulation) to actually have a theory. The informational content in Marx is a result of external information being brought in from this source. not some a priori derivation.
It is logically impossible to derive more information from a theory than you put in. Hegel isn’t wrong because he hasn't been formalized, Hegel is wrong AND THATS WHY he hasn't been formalized, because to pose it in a formal way would open it up to the same sorts of incompleteness arguments that have been used against other systems in the past. A system of logic must be "mechanisably falsifiable" (in the Turing-ist, not Popperian sense).
It has been mathematically proven any law in physics, if not computable, can be simulated to a finite degree i.e. the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle. A human brain exists as a physical system in physical material reality. Any claim that a human brain performing logic using Hegel's system or any other can transgress the inherent limits of computation therefore must inherently devolve into a form of cartesian dualism.
And that’s giving the maximum benefit of the doubt, since any evidence there is actually points to a human brain being weaker than a UTM not the opposite. And before anyone says well a brain is analog, and that somehow lets it transcend digital logic: there have been information theory proofs that show that you can simulate analogue processes digitally with arbitrary precision (in theory, though probably not in practice tbf). also:
>the effects of noise on limiting information transfer allow us to quantify the information transmission rates of real neurons, and they are finite and finitely describable. The presence of noise in the brain, which is estimated at the level of 10%, simply makes analogue hypercomputation not a credible option after all.
Choice:
1. For Hegel’s or any system of logic to be complete it would also have to be hypercomputational
2. There are very strong arguments why both logical systems and physical reality are not hypercomputational
Therefore:
Any claim that a system can transcend these limits is equivalent to a claim that the system can transcend the limits of both logic and physical reality. This is non materialist and also anti scientific.
Conclusion:
Marx got around this limit of Hegel’s system by using actual empirical and historical data in his work. In that sense he is a bad Hegelian but a better theorist. The reality is that Hegel’s system does not enable us to transcend the limits of logic but is likely internally inconsistent or relies on assumptions which are not themselves derived from the system. This could only be demonstrated by a complete formalization of the system, which will never happen for exactly those reasons.
Hegelianism is supposed to be a complete, closed circuit system (Engels):
>Therefore, however much Hegel, especially in his Logic, emphasized that this eternal truth is nothing but the logical, or, the historical, process itself, he nevertheless finds himself compelled to supply this process with an end, just because he has to bring his system to a termination at some point or other. In his Logic, he can make this end a beginning again, since here the point of the conclusion, the absolute idea — which is only absolute insofar as he has absolutely nothing to say about it — “alienates”, that is, transforms, itself into nature and comes to itself again later in the mind, that is, in thought and in history. But at the end of the whole philosophy, a similar return to the beginning is possible only in one way. Namely, by conceiving of the end of history as follows: mankind arrives at the cognition of the self-same absolute idea, and declares that this cognition of the absolute idea is reached in Hegelian philosophy.
Even hypothetically, if a hypercomputational system of logic existed it would be incomprehensible to human minds because we can’t compute it. For the same reason humans can’t apprehend actual physical infinities. There is literally no human brain big enough to understand it, let alone write it down. If such a system existed only an infinite being (i.e. God) would have any chance of understanding it.
Laugh it up, but Hegel is actually pretty close to claiming this. Starting with Spinoza for who god was nature, for Hegel god is reason, that comes to understand itself i.e. “Absolute Spirit” an ‘all-inclusive unity’. Spinoza’s system is close to a (nondualist) vedantic or buddhist idea of a cosmic soul. Hegel is a Spinozist, and literally stated as much:
>“The fact is that Spinoza is made a testing-point in modern philosophy, so that it may really be said: You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all.”
t. Hegel
Hegel inherits this ontological(existence) monism and changes it from static being to a process of self development of consciousness. But what is this consciousness? It is not a human consciousness but a cosmic consciousness which comes to know itself.
The problem is that we know that ontological monism is false, and not scientific. The fact that buddhism and other forms of eastern mysticism are becoming so popular on the left is a consequence of this bullshit.
We know now that material reality is made up of physical particles like atoms, protons, electrons and quarks. A human mind is bound by the laws of physical reality, and as TCS has shown the laws of computability at a MAXIMUM.
Positing the actual real existence of dialectics is equivalent to positing the existence of a God, whether of the spooky christfaggotry type or an impersonal Spinozist/Hegelian or eastern type.
For Marxism to be scientifically grounded it needs to divorce Hegelianism. This necessitates also rejecting the arrogant assumption of logical completeness that Hegel posits which was already rejected by Marxism as explained by Engels in ‘Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy’. Although Engels does a lot of cringeworthy Hegel-stanning in that book too he also recognizes its limits esp. in terms of Marxism.
Althusser went a long way in doing this. It always makes me laugh when people try and say that modern Marx scholarship has obviated Althusser’s idea of an epistemic break, they simply do not understand the idea of symptomatic reading, which does not rely on authorial intent. For Althusser, reading is to ‘determine what a particular text is unable to say or represses because of its ideological conviction.’.
>In The Philosophy of the Encounter, texts dating from the late 1970s and early 80s, he somewhat modifies his original position on the epistemological break. He now says that there were relict Hegelian idealist strands in Marx as late as Capital.
>The shift to seeing the epistemological break as being gradual is realistic. Having looked at Althusser’s idea of matérialisme aléatoire it occurred to me that instead of relying on old Lucretius’s second hand account of Epicurus’s now lost works, Althusser would have been better to rely on the modern Atomists. I got out Heisenberg’s Physics and Philosophy. In the second chapter of this he gives an account of the historical birth of the quantum theory and the long period that elapsed between Planck’s initial work on the black body radiation in 1895 through Einstein’s introduction of the idea of the photon in 1905 to the matrix and wave mechanics of the mid 20s up to the synthesis of these in the late 20s. We are talking here of a 30 year period for the epistemological break between classical and quantum mechanics during which a half dozen or so of the brightest minds in the world worked on the problem collectively. Heisenberg recounts that in the early 20s they had hybrid ideas mixing a bit of quantum with a bit of the classical continuum, which were still a scientific advance but were far from being fully worked out. The Bohr atom with electrons in actual orbits was an advance, but it retained Newtonian forms of thought: electrons as planets, the nucleus as a sun. It could not account for the great stability of atoms under collision. Two solar systems approaching one another would be completely disrupted but atoms bounce off one another unharmed. It is a mistake to expect Marx, working without the active collaboration of other theorists, to have completely worked out a consistent framework in his own life. What you were bound to get is a gradual process in which things became more and more worked out as time went on. You can see the same thing in Darwin. After the explicit break with the Lamarkian concept of evolution of acquired characteristics in the Origin of the Species, one sees the old concept of acquired characteristics resurface from time to time in the Descent of Man or in the Expression of the Emotions. Without a theory of genetics like that developed by Mendel, the old idea of evolution through acquired characteristics retained its appeal… the logical inconsistency of the Lamarkian model is easy to see after DNA but was not originally so evident.
We need an epicurean/ATOMIST and post-althusserian symptomatic reading of Marx, informed by modern physics and information theory, rebasing Marxism from its deterministic roots inspired of newtonian physics and classic evolutionary biology to a modern one based on notions of randomness and stochastic process, in line with the shift of modern physics.
But I’m sure the pseuds over here will continue to say HURR DURR MUH HEGEL MUH ANGLO POSITIVISM HEHE BASED
>>2426217Dialectical and historical materialism suggests that the scientific explanation of this phenomena; rather than being arbitrary – is that these
strictly formal terms in the scientific sense are informed and structured by the labour of scientists and the economic base and superstructure of the societies these scientists live in
Key take away, Marxism is international because science is international
and therefore; for the slow among us, marxism, ie scientific socialism, dialectical and historical materialism, Communism, Abundance etc are international because they are a science. In fact [!!] Science that is not internationalist is not Science, it is missing the point and doomed to trailing the state of the art. tl;dr
Dialectical and Historical Materialism has been proved through exhaustionThe secular trend of the rate of profit falling continues as a long term iron law, the economic reaction and the missing extra productivity mystery of information technology is on fact explained by the not too complicated mathematics Marx uses to describe it, and the further implications of the General Intellect and The Fragment on Machines continue to show accuracy in predicting and explaining what is going on in the global economy
We are at the exciting stage of science where Dialectical and Historical Materialism is proven applied science, and you can get amazing results and scoop competing teams by yourself with some clever use of AIML but because some conservative scientists holding back science, particularly America who believe species are God given; your trivial proofs, that you can do through fairly simple maths and applying science to AI will look like that black obsidian monolith that falls out of the sky in that old American movie, and the apes dance around it and strike it with bones
If you have even a little background in science and mathematics, or even related fields like engineering etc
Just go get your solid proof; In science and mathematics proofs are rewarding all on their own, one of the best things about the field
Unique IPs: 43